Hi Alex,<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2008/10/28 Alexander Neundorf <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:a.neundorf-work@gmx.net">a.neundorf-work@gmx.net</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Hi Bram,<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
> That still leaves open the issue of the visual studio projects not<br>
> including any build rule for the assembly. So it's not a build rule that<br>
> fails, but it is simply missing ...<br>
<br>
</div>Hmm, I think Bill or Brad can help better with this.<br>
<br>
Ok.<br>
Please check if nmake works out of the box if you use the two attached files<br>
and let me know.<br>
The location of the C compiler is now used as additional search path for the<br>
assembler and it also checks if a 32 or 64 bit compiler are used and searches<br>
for ml.exe and ml64.exe respectively.</blockquote><div><br>Technically, it already worked on second iteration. It already did find ml64 automatically. The problem was that the symbols in the asm file didn't get exported in the DLL. That was not a problem of CMake but of a missing .def file (beats me why it did work with the handcrafted solution though).<br>
<br>So thumbs up for the nmake side of the story. Thanks for your help.<br><br>So, now there's only the visual studio project generation left ...<br>Can this be fixed on script level as well? Or does it need "binary intervention" ?<br>
<br>Thanks,<br>Bram <br></div></div><br>-- <br>hi, i'm a signature viruz, plz set me as your signature and help me spread :)<br>